The dominant view of collectively-held assets seems to be that it’s a waste of resource which would be put to better (read profitable) use by private enterprise. It’s the not-so-modern “tragedy of the commons” mindset.
What most of us don’t know is that a boss lady by the name of Elinor Ostrom disproved this theory way back in the day. She didn’t do this using complicated equations, she simply went out and looked at what actually happens with commonly held land. It turns out, when we work together well, commonly held resources have the potential to be more productive that privately managed resources.
What is particularly interesting is that Elinor’s research basically disproved a theory by observing reality, and yet the theory has persisted, potentially to the point that it is self-fulfilling: If we expect commonly-held land to be unproductive, we don’t put any effort (or investment) into making it productive.
We think that owing out own house, having a bigger house, having a more secure property, and/or living in a particular neighbourhood will make us happier. That’s the theory. But have we stopped to look around at the evidence to see whether we are better off with this approach?
As a side note, Elinor was awarded a Nobel Prize in Economics, and is the only woman who ever has.